It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionCan somebody explain GOG vs Steam DRM?(125 posts)(125 posts)
(125 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 19, 2019
avatar
50urc3c0d3: I think he's definitely interested in a more open market. But more specifically, a no Steam market.
avatar
eric5h5: That's not an open market. Refusing to publish Darq unless it's an exclusive is the exact opposite of an open market.

it would be pointless to bring them in non-exclusive. There would be no interest in it.
avatar
eric5h5: So you're saying the EGS has zero value on its own? How does that work with an open market?
You missed everything I was saying. The problem is specific to DRM. EGS wants a fairer system. Steam has had a monopolistic dominance over PC game DRM with ridiculously exhorbitant fees. DRM alone is already a problem for the PC industry as a whole. But from developer perspective, so is losing money to piracy. Short of DRM-free, EGS is seeking to offer a more blanaced system.

In fact, if not for Steam monopolistic dominance, I doubt very much Epic would have stepped up to to address the problem by creatig EGS. Epic value on their own, as you put it, isn't an issue. Their value is all over. Including overwhelmingly developer preferred engine and service to say the least.

So when it comes to their store, they're clearly trying to create a legit store with product line. Eventually, they can open up to handle more products. But currently it's wiser to limit themselves. In the early stages, their main focus is Steam. The so-called "exclusivity" is specifically directed at blocking Steam. That is what I mean by "interest". For certain devs they approach, it isn't about their own store. It's about stopping them from getting on Steam. Because in the early stages, the basis of EGS is a bit less about working on their store as it is about dealing with the Steam problem.

So in the current stage their in, EGS initially opt to list more mainstream games. Before devling into infrastructure for deciding what non-mainstream games to adopt. In the meantime, the infrastructure for intercepting games from Steam is in full locomotion. So if a game seems to have good potential for Steam, it's not about EGS wanting to make money off of the game. It's about wanting to prevent it from getting on Steam. If the game says they're listing on Steam anyway, then EGS moves on.

Meanwhile, the sort of "anti-consumer exclusivity" that Steamers are steamed about is "game not Steam". This is where the stockholm syndrome comes in. When these users feel like their taking some kind of stand againt some evil monster for their savior - the one who has been holding them hostage and ramming it up their rear for over a decade.
Post edited August 20, 2019 by 50urc3c0d3
Posted August 19, 2019
avatar
50urc3c0d3: Steam has had a monopolistic dominance over PC game DRM...
This doesn't make any sense. Any Developer/Publisher releasing on Steam has been free to implement any DRM system they please.

Try to DRM the word DRM a bit less, you DRM.
Posted August 19, 2019
avatar
AB2012: being made more visible again by competing stores
Yes. This eloquently describes what I noticed - "Oh no this anti-consumer fucker is forcing me to install their EGS launcher to play a game. Long live Steam!" Excuse me?

I learned a ton from what most of the friendly users here have been describing. And sort of got a bigger perspective on things. I'll just copy most of what I posted in a different response.

The problem is specific to DRM. EGS wants a fairer system. Steam has had a monopolistic dominance over PC game DRM with ridiculously exhorbitant fees. DRM alone is already a problem for the PC industry as a whole. But from developer perspective, so is losing money to piracy. Short of DRM-free, EGS is seeking to offer a more blanaced system.

In fact, if not for Steam monopolistic dominance, I doubt very much Epic would have stepped up to to address the problem by creatig EGS. Epic value on their own isn't an issue. Their value is all over. Including overwhelmingly developer preferred engine and service to say the least.

So when it comes to their store, they're clearly trying to create a legit store with product line. Eventually, they can open up to handle more products. But currently it's wiser to limit themselves. In the early stages, their main focus is Steam. The so-called "exclusivity" is specifically directed at blocking Steam. For certain devs they approach, it isn't about their own store. It's about stopping them from getting on Steam. Because in the early stages, the basis of EGS is a bit less about working on their store as it is about dealing with the Steam problem.

So in the current stage their in, EGS initially opt to list more mainstream games. Before devling into infrastructure for deciding what non-mainstream games to adopt. In the meantime, the infrastructure for intercepting games from Steam is in full locomotion. So if a game seems to have good potential for Steam, it's not about EGS wanting to make money off of the game. It's about wanting to prevent it from getting on Steam. If the game says they're listing on Steam anyway, then EGS moves on.

Meanwhile, the sort of "anti-consumer exclusivity" that Steamers are steamed about is "game not Steam". This is where the stockholm syndrome comes in. When these users feel like their taking some kind of stand againt some evil monster for their savior - the one who has been holding them hostage and ramming it up their rear for over a decade.
Post edited August 19, 2019 by 50urc3c0d3
Posted August 19, 2019
avatar
50urc3c0d3: You missed everything I was saying.
Still missing it; can't make much sense of what you're trying to say I'm afraid.
Steam has had a monopolistic dominance over PC game DRM with ridiculously exhorbitant fees.
The fees aren't exorbitant. I guess you weren't around when the standard split was 70/30...in favor of the publisher. You realize GOG has about the same fees as Steam and they barely make money? I'm all for developers getting as high a percentage as possible, but you need to be realistic.
Posted August 19, 2019
avatar
eric5h5: The fees aren't exorbitant. I guess you weren't around when the standard split was 70/30...in favor of the publisher. You realize GOG has about the same fees as Steam and they barely make money? I'm all for developers getting as high a percentage as possible, but you need to be realistic.
GOG makes a decent objective share. Subjective to somebody like Steam, the relativity obviously changes.

From the data and numbers, most of the market tends to agree that Steam fees are overwhelmingly in Steam's favor in light of the overall PC gaming market. So you claim realisitc. I don't see how EGS fees are less realistic. Sure, I'd go as far as to call it insane (but most definitely in a good way). If Steam isn't exhorbitant, then EGS must be overly (unrealistically) generous? Questions have even been brought up about the possibility of EGS raising fees to 15/85. Nope. EGS adamantly insists they intend to keep 12/88 perpetual. They don't seem to be lying. Either way, still far far better than Steam's model.
Post edited August 20, 2019 by 50urc3c0d3
Posted August 20, 2019
Lol @ fail shill.

Re: specifically Darwinia:

I started buying games around 2009, when I got properly employed. At the time, there was a massive true-indie-wide campaign to make Steam sell indie games. The standard fee was BMTmicro's 10+%. Your customers got buggy plain-html emails with limited downloads. Storefront, forums, advertizing, customer management, installers, web backend, multiplayer, refunds? All on you. Cheevos? Haha that's a good one.

(edit: These days, Steam gives so much free stuff to developers in exchange for skimming their 30% -- only off purchases that come through Steam, mind you -- that there's a whole parasitic "industry", namely key reselling, which feeds off Steam's free stuff.)

Meanwhile, Darwinia had been advertized along AAAs for 4 years already. They got 3 more years of AAA-class exposure, as Greenlight opened in 2012 and was abolished in 2017. Only then the floodgates opened.

Cry me a river.
Post edited August 20, 2019 by Starmaker
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
rjbuffchix: It's why I use the term "DRM-exclusive" for PC games that are tied to Scheme, Epic Fail, U-Rent, EA Orentgin, etc. For example, Skyrim is DRM-exclusive. Metro Exodus is DRM-exclusive. Dragon Age II is DRM-exclusive.

For a PC gamer like me who only wants to buy DRM-free, it really doesn't matter which of the above services a game is on. If the game is not available on a DRM-free store, I will eschew that game and buy something DRM-free instead.
avatar
GameRager: 1st bit: Using silly lame names for other services, to me, is a tad childish.

2nd bit: More for those of us who are more flexible, then.
OP responded to this point better than I could:
avatar
50urc3c0d3: Yes the rest of us who still play DRM games take it up the ass to play certain games we like. But few of us will ever admit that we are taking it up the ass without being delusional about it.
Moving on... :)

avatar
tfishell: what about GrentgrOldGreentors?
I am holding off on an alternate mock name unless a client becomes mandatory :)
avatar
50urc3c0d3: You missed everything I was saying. The problem is specific to DRM. EGS wants a fairer system. Steam has had a monopolistic dominance over PC game DRM with ridiculously exhorbitant fees. DRM alone is already a problem for the PC industry as a whole. But from developer perspective, so is losing money to piracy. Short of DRM-free, EGS is seeking to offer a more blanaced system.

In fact, if not for Steam monopolistic dominance, I doubt very much Epic would have stepped up to to address the problem by creatig EGS. Epic value on their own, as you put it, isn't an issue. Their value is all over. Including overwhelmingly developer preferred engine and service to say the least.
You are correct that the problem is DRM, so I hope you would join those who decry Epic Fail DRM the same way you would decry Scheme DRM. And, perhaps I am misconstruing your position, but I do not believe Epic Fail are acting out of the goodness of their hearts to save consumers from Scheme. I would be VERY impressed and support EFS if they were insisting their exclusives be DRM-free (surely they have enough money already to offer as an additional sweetener?). And I mean real DRM-free the way GOG does it, not wonky workarounds and clients trying to launch when clicking on an exe file. Sadly, I don't see how this would ever happen, and thus I cannot get excited about their presence in the market beyond that they make Scheme-only fanboys upset. To me DRM is DRM is DRM. Get rid of the DRM and then other stores would become quite appealing.
Post edited August 20, 2019 by rjbuffchix
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
rjbuffchix: You are correct that the problem is DRM, so I hope you would join those who decry Epic Fail DRM the same way you would decry Scheme DRM. And, perhaps I am misconstruing your position, but I do not believe Epic Fail are acting out of the goodness of their hearts to save consumers from Scheme. I would be VERY impressed and support EFS if they were insisting their exclusives be DRM-free (surely they have enough money already to offer as an additional sweetener?). And I mean real DRM-free the way GOG does it, not wonky workarounds and clients trying to launch when clicking on an exe file. Sadly, I don't see how this would ever happen, and thus I cannot get excited about their presence in the market beyond that they make Scheme-only fanboys upset. To me DRM is DRM is DRM. Get rid of the DRM and then other stores would become quite appealing.
Maybe misconstruing because you are correct. There's no two ways about anti-consumer being anti-consumer. Epic has every ability to go DRM-free.

What I'm pointing out is an overall improvement in regards to more of a middle road on the way to DRM-free. Online Fortnite game aside, Epic hasn't released a PC game since 2007 Unreal 3. The reason devs of PC games have gone strictly console has been losing money to piracy. This type of trend was majorly apparent when Crytek, known for PC, released Ryse exclusively on console. That is until later. Piracy being the only factor.

Aside from their next Unreal game coming up, I do think Epic should release all previous games on PC DRM-free.

Their store is a whole different story. I can't even say something like "if their store was DRM-free, then X" because their store exists to address a problem within DRM. If their store was DRM-free, then it would never have existed.

Just to clarify a bit more, the problem isn't just about multiple platforms. So big names like EA or Ubi are losing money to piracy. Well, they go to the DRM monopoly, and notice they're not saving that much. There's always full out console. Or another solution to develop their own respective platforms to DRM themselves.

But what about many other devs that can't necessarily afford their own platform? So they're effectively eating the cost of Steam DRM monopoly no matter what. Epic has a platform for their engine as well as their game. Which happens to have managed consistency as the top online game. Therefore, a population base the size of a small country. All eager to dish out dough with not really much to offer them.

So yes most definitely, nobody is doing anything purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Two things combined = EGS. One - hungry population that needs milking. Two - problem with DRM which is either use Steam or egress to console. The console thing, Epic is very familiar with.

Short of a DRM-free world, what do we have now with EGS? Seems to at least be a step forward. This very much includes DARQ going DRM-free after reprecussions from an incident thanks to EGS. Even Metro 3 price dropped by almost 80% from it's original as soon as it made its exodus from Steam. But overall, a better DRM pricing model for devs who aren't huge enough to create their own platforms. Games getting usurped off of Steam. All the best PC games of 2019 aren't on Steam. This is nuts. And the excellent free games don't make matters worse.

From what I can tell in regards to what it means for DRM-free, things seem to be opening up overall. I personally can't complain too much. Because like I said, I'm not one of those users who takes that strictly DRM-free stand. I still play games I love, but begrudgingly with DRM there. But what I can say as a DRM-free supporter, is that I wouldn't change EGS to DRM-free until the perfect time to strike. Because Steam just continues to bloat. There still needs to be a decent solution to prevent anything like Steam from happening. And again, from this perspective, I have never seen anybody do anything close to the extent of what EGS is doing now.
Posted August 20, 2019
steam: all powerful. shitty practices
gog: non-powerful. spergy practices

etc: semi-powerful. etc.

cherry pick to suit your needs. its your right as a consumer
Posted August 20, 2019
low rated
avatar
.Kaby: Steam Support disabled my Steam account for "spamming of tickets" (I "own" 1000+ games in the past). So, definitely GOG is better.
And this is why I don't post hardly ever on their forums and keep cracks handy for bought games in case I need them.

avatar
50urc3c0d3: Meanwhile, the sort of "anti-consumer exclusivity" that Steamers are steamed about is "game not Steam". This is where the stockholm syndrome comes in. When these users feel like their taking some kind of stand againt some evil monster for their savior - the one who has been holding them hostage and ramming it up their rear for over a decade.
Some are irked also that devs promise other store versions and people preorder then the dev changes their mind and goes all one store.

avatar
GameRager: 1st bit: Using silly lame names for other services, to me, is a tad childish.

2nd bit: More for those of us who are more flexible, then.
avatar
rjbuffchix: OP responded to this point better than I could:
avatar
50urc3c0d3: Yes the rest of us who still play DRM games take it up the ass to play certain games we like. But few of us will ever admit that we are taking it up the ass without being delusional about it.
avatar
rjbuffchix: Moving on... :)
Yes, telling me what someone already told us and I replied to(btw) is telling me/showing me. I already said it's ok and i accept it somewhat.....which means I can enjoy more media/games as a result. A fair trade, I think.

Also that doesn't discount the fact that calling stuff one doesn't like silly names is something teens and children do....or people from 5+ years back on some sites. What does calling them silly names accomplish btw? I guess it sure shows them and makes them want to change(end sarcasm). ;)
Post edited August 20, 2019 by GameRager
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
50urc3c0d3: Epic has every ability to go DRM-free.
Only for their own games. Otherwise there are contracts involved which will forbid them to remove the DRM (that is also why the infamous "promise" that Steam-DRM would be removed from all games should Steam close is moot - the available DRM is part of the original package, Steam can't just unilaterally break this without consent from every game publisher using this feature), or in cases like UBI third party DRM like UPlay, which they simply can't remove.
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
50urc3c0d3: Epic has every ability to go DRM-free.
avatar
toxicTom: Only for their own games. Otherwise there are contracts involved which will forbid them to remove the DRM (that is also why the infamous "promise" that Steam-DRM would be removed from all games should Steam close is moot - the available DRM is part of the original package, Steam can't just unilaterally break this without consent from every game publisher using this feature), or in cases like UBI third party DRM like UPlay, which they simply can't remove.
Naturally. It goes without saying. They can't even impose DRM or DRM-free even on their own engine. It's the devs decision. So their option is their games. Or a store that only allows DRM-free games.

I think the whole gist of it is that I, personally, don't have any ill will towards EGS in the same way I do about Steam. Just like I don't have ill will towards devs who choose to DRM their games. I might not like it. Actually I hate it - it's annoying as hell. But I'm not a developer. I'm not in their shoes. So I can respect their reservations to an extent.
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
GameRager: Yes, telling me what someone already told us and I replied to(btw) is telling me/showing me. I already said it's ok and i accept it somewhat.....which means I can enjoy more media/games as a result. A fair trade, I think.

Also that doesn't discount the fact that calling stuff one doesn't like silly names is something teens and children do....or people from 5+ years back on some sites. What does calling them silly names accomplish btw? I guess it sure shows them and makes them want to change(end sarcasm). ;)
Sorry, I did mean to respond to that point. The silly names is a way of poking fun at them and (admittedly hopefully) getting people to realize these sites/clients are literally a bad joke. If people think for more than a nanosecond, they would realize what a raw deal they are getting from places like Scheme where they have to log in before they can even play the game that they supposedly "own." These places are also worthy of silly names because I do not wish to dignify their existence or increase their web presence by using the real names. Now, I am just using my "joke names" casually here only to refer to the stores so it is clear which one I am talking about, but more generally, mockery/shame can be a valid way for consumers to voice their concerns. Do you deny that?
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
50urc3c0d3: There's no two ways about anti-consumer being anti-consumer. Epic has every ability to go DRM-free.

[...]

Aside from their next Unreal game coming up, I do think Epic should release all previous games on PC DRM-free.

Their store is a whole different story. I can't even say something like "if their store was DRM-free, then X" because their store exists to address a problem within DRM. If their store was DRM-free, then it would never have existed.
My point is about the store, not Epic's own games. What is stopping them from paying out the wazoo to not only have an exclusive, but have it also be DRM-free? In other words, paying more money to the dev/pub to make their game DRM-free on EFS. Surely, the dev/pub has a price. If EFS were to start doing that, THEN I would consider them to be really good for consumers. As it stands right now, EFS is indeed helping erode some of the Scheme monopoly. However, without making strides towards DRM-free, this strikes me as just shifting things around in the same place. It is not making a positive step forward.

avatar
50urc3c0d3: Short of a DRM-free world, what do we have now with EGS?
Another DRM store, which has particularly deep pockets compared to other DRM stores. Yawn. :)

avatar
50urc3c0d3: Seems to at least be a step forward. This very much includes DARQ going DRM-free after reprecussions from an incident thanks to EGS.
With all due respect to DARQ, this isn't really making much waves imo. Plenty of indie games go DRM-free. I'd like to see Skyrim go DRM-free. I'd like to see The Outer Worlds DRM-free upon release. Can they do that? I would assume yes, with significantly more money paid out to dev/pub. Will they do that? No, because people still make excuses and accept DRM.

EFS, along with Scheme, are complicit in the "war on ownership" pervading society. I don't think it's much of a leap to think all the microtransactions infesting gaming is a way of ensuring there are always whales who buy the content even if 90+% of the audience leaves. Imo, EFS, Scheme, and any other DRMed store are a little bit scared at the prospect people could wake up and demand to actually own (meaning have control over) the things they buy.

avatar
50urc3c0d3: There still needs to be a decent solution to prevent anything like Steam from happening. And again, from this perspective, I have never seen anybody do anything close to the extent of what EGS is doing now.
The tactics EFS uses, of making games exclusive and forcing people to use its client, are EXACTLY the same tactics that Scheme used in its early days. The solution to "prevent anything like Steam from happening" is to not support new stores that are essentially "Steam, with a 15 year delay." Scheme was touted by many as being consumer friendly-enough to put up with their DRM. Look how that turned out.

avatar
50urc3c0d3: But what I can say as a DRM-free supporter, is that I wouldn't change EGS to DRM-free until the perfect time to strike.
The time is now. Look at all the disgruntled people on this site (GOG), including many older users that have contributed scores of work and content to the site. If apart from here, the general populace accepts, but doesn't really think about, DRM, then why does the DRM need to exist? EFS could rope in all the disgruntled GOG users in addition to the same mainstream people that don't care if the DRM is in their game or not. EFS is (supposedly) already okay with people downloading SOME games and playing them DRM-free. Why not extend this principle on an unprecendented scale that even a competitor like GOG couldn't hope to match? Answer: having the control is clearly more important to them than satisfying the (principled) consumer.
Posted August 20, 2019
avatar
rjbuffchix: ...
Storefront like Steam, Epic or GOG in principle have two types of customers, they provide a service for:
The publisher ("Sell our games, and here is your cut") and
The games ("Sell us games, here is your money").

They have to balance both of them and keep them happy. Both at the same time, because piss off the publishers and you have no games, and then the gamers will leave too. Piss off the gamers (pretty hard to do though, seems to be a masochistic bunch ;-)) and publishers aren't interested in you.

The problem is that the publishers esp. AAA want their DRM. It's them, who want the control. I don't think it's even about copy protection anymore (games are cracked quickly and Witcher 3 proved that a DRM-free games can sell an amazing amount of copies).

If Epic wanted to go DRM-free, they would end up smaller than GOG and publishers would just stick to Steam and their own platforms (unless massively bribed).
In the end Epic is a business, not a charity. The success of Steam and Co, and the lack thereof (at least on the larger scale) of GOG just proves that most people don't care about DRM. So why should they throw money on a problem they don't have in the first place?
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionCan somebody explain GOG vs Steam DRM?(125 posts)(125 posts)
(125 posts)